Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Fund is a multi-employer trust fund under the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. 186, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Blue Cross is a Michigan non-profit corporation; its enabling statute authorizes the State Insurance Commissioner to require it to pay a cost transfer of one percent of its “earned subscription income” to the state for use to pay costs beyond what Medicare covers. In 2002 the Fund converted to a self-funded plan, and entered into an Administrative Services Contract with Blue Cross, which states that Blue Cross is not the Plan Administrator, Plan Sponsor, or fiduciary under ERISA; its obligations are limited to processing and paying claims. In 2004 the Fund sued, claiming that Blue Cross breached ERISA fiduciary duties by imposing and failing to disclose a cost transfer subsidy fee to subsidize coverage for non-group clients. The fee was regularly collected from group clients. Self-insured clients were not always required to pay it. Following a first remand, the district court granted class certification and granted the Fund summary judgment. On a second remand, the court again granted judgment on the fee imposition claim and awarded damages of $284,970.84 plus $106,960.78 in prejudgment interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Pipefitters Local 636 Ins. Fund v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MI" on Justia Law

In 1990 Plummer, a recognized expert in horse-breeding and the tax consequences of related investments, created the Mare Lease Program to enable investors to participate in his horse-breeding business and take advantage of tax code provision classification of horse-breeding investments as farming expenses, with a five-year net operating loss carryback period instead of the typical two years, 26 U.S.C. 172(b)(1)(G). Plummer’s investors would lease a mare, which would be paired with a stallion, and investors could sell resulting foals, deducting the amount of the initial investment while realizing the gain from owning a thoroughbred foal. If they kept foals for at least two years, the sale qualified for the long-term capital gains tax rate, 26 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A). Between 2001 and 2005, the Program generated more than $600 million. Law and accounting firms hired by defendants purportedly vetted the Program. Plummer and other defendants began funneling Program funds into an oil-and-gas lease scheme. It was later discovered that the Program’s assets were substantially overvalued or nonexistent. Investors sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), also alleging fraud and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment and awarded $49.4 million with prejudgment interest of $15.6 million. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that there was no genuine dispute over any material facts. View "West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Advance installs and services signs. It alleges that it entered into a contract to sell Optec’s electronic messaging signs to foodservice customers. Advance claims that Optec agreed not to sell directly to the foodservice companies. Rogers, a franchisee of Sonic Restaurants, was a long-time Advance customer. Advance and Optec undertook a pilot project to install signs at Sonic corporate-owned locations and Rogers’s franchises. Advance claimed that Optec violated the agreement by negotiating with Sonic directly. Advance and Optec entered a second agreement by phone, with Optec to pay Advance 12 percent of net on sales made by Optec to customers introduced by Advance. Advance sent a letter memorializing the terms; Optec made a minor change, unrelated to commission; Advance incorporated the change and returned the letter. Optec refused to sign. Following additional negotiations, Optec signed a two-year agreement with Sonic and installed signs at 1,400 locations, without Advance being involved. A jury found in favor of Advance on breach-of-contract claims and a claim for tortious interference and awarded damages of $3,444,000 for breach of the telephone agreement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that: there was no meeting of the minds for the telephone agreement; Ohio’s Statute of Frauds precluded enforcement; Advance did not prove its tortious interference claim; and that the evidence did not support the damages awards. View "Advance Sign Grp., LLC v. Optec Displays, Inc." on Justia Law

Triple A, a Michigan corporation, has offices in Dearborn, Michigan, the Congo (previously known as Zaire), and Sierra Leone. In 1993, Zaire ordered military equipment worth $14,070,000 from Triple A. A South Korean manufacturer shipped the equipment to Zaire at Triple A’s request. For 17 years, Triple A sought payment from Zaire and then the Congo without success. In 2010, Triple A sued the Congo for breach of contract. The district court dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1602. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the language of the Act, under which federal courts have jurisdiction “in any case in which the action is based upon” the following: [1] a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or [2] upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or [3] upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States. View "Triple A Int'l, Inc. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the owners and lessors of royalty rights to natural gas produced in Trumbull and Mahoning Counties in Ohio, filed a putative class-action lawsuit, alleging that three interrelated energy companies that entered into oil and gas leases with plaintiffs deliberately and fraudulently underpaid gas royalties over more than a decade. Plaintiffs asserted breach of contract and five additional tort and quasi-contract claims and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The district court dismissed, holding that the contract claim was time-barred by Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations and that none of the tort and quasi-contract claims were separate and distinct from the underlying contract action because they did not allege any obligations apart from those imposed by the leases. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that the district court failed to consider plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment argument and that allegations regarding due diligence were sufficient to require further analysis. View "Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Exact developed business software. Infocon began distributing Exact’s software in 1998. A conflict arose when Exact allegedly abandoned a scheduled upgrade, leaving distributors like Infocon out to dry, and Infocon allegedly failed to remit fees. Exact sued Infocon in 2003. According to the district court, Exact showed “persistent noncompliance with… ever more stringent” discovery orders. When Infocon moved for a default judgment, Exact fired its lawyer, hired new counsel and entered settlement negotiations. . On the eve of settlement, Infocon fired its lawyer, DeMoisey. DeMoisey placed a charging lien on the settlement proceeds. Exact delivered the $4 million settlement to the district court, which distributed most of it to Infocon and placed the remaining $1.2 million in escrow pending resolution of the fee dispute. Nine months later, Infocon sued DeMoisey in Kentucky state court for malpractice. After a summary judgment ruling in favor of the lawyer, the district court held a bench trial and awarded DeMoisey $1.4 million in quantum meruit relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the amount was too high, that Infocon had a right to a jury trial and, for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because DeMoisey and Infocon are both from Kentucky. View "Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. Infocon Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

USI sued defendants for five million dollars, claiming misappropriation of funds held in escrow. USI also sought relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Canada (similar to a reorganization bankruptcy). Ultimately defendants agreed to pay USI $1,242,000 in installments. USI petitioned the CCAA court for clearance to proceed with settlement. Pursuant to that court’s directions, USI posted notice on its website informing creditors of the settlement. Alleging that the posting violated a confidentiality clause, the defendants refused to pay in accordance with the settlement. A magistrate ruled that there was no breach because the posting was “very, very vague,” but enjoined USI from future publication of the information. The district court reversed, holding that magistrates are not authorized to issue injunctions. Defendants then filed a separate suit, claiming that USI breached the confidentiality provision, and that under the “first-breach doctrine,” one who commits the first “substantial breach” of a contract cannot maintain an action against the other party for failure to perform; they obtained a temporary restraining order in state court that prevented USI from collecting on its judgment. After transfer back to the court in which the settlement was approved, the district court dissolved the injunction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Nat'l Viatical, Inc.,v. Universal Settlement Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Heartland is an investment firm that formerly held an ownership interest in Metaldyne, an automotive supplier. Leuliette is a co-founder of Heartland and was the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Metaldyne. Tredwell is also a Heartland co-founder and a Metaldyne Board member. In 2006, Heartland agreed to sell its interest in Metaldyne to Ripplewood. Metaldyne submitted an SEC “Schedule 14A and 14C Information” report that detailed the terms of the acquisition, but failed to mention that Metaldyne would owe plaintiffs, former executives, approximately $13 million as a result of the sale, under a change-of-control provision in Metaldyne’s “Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan,” in which Plaintiffs participated. The SERP is subject to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Ripplewood threatened to back out of the deal when it found out about the obligation. In response, Leuliette and Tredwell persuaded Metaldyne’s Board to declare the SERP invalid without notifying Plaintiffs. The Ripplewood deal closed less than a month later. Leuliette personally collected more than $10 million as a result. Plaintiffs claimed tortious interference with contractual relations. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the state law claims were not “completely preempted” under section 1132(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. View "Gardner v. Heartland Indus. Partners, LP" on Justia Law

Grigoleit supplied knobs for Whirlpool’s washing machines and dryers for several years, and sought to increase prices and amend the parties’ purchase contracts in 2004. The parties reached an amended agreement in 2005, which Whirlpool terminated later that year. When Grigoleit demanded final payment, Whirlpool sued, arguing the contract was unenforceable. The district court upheld the contract but found some aspects of it unconscionable. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the contract was enforceable. Under Michigan law both substantive and procedural unconscionability are required to hold an agreement unenforceable. Refusing to certify questions to the state’s supreme court, the Sixth Circuit reversed the holding that a $40,000 flat fee and 8% increase are unconscionable. Whirlpool created the urgent and unfavorable conditions under which it proposed these terms, and had ample time and opportunity to negotiate more favorable terms. Whirlpool had the resources, experience, and ability to avoid the terms entirely, yet chose not to do so. View "Whirlpool Corp. v. Grigoleit Co." on Justia Law

Conlin refinanced with a loan from Bergin, secured by a mortgage containing a provision that recognized MERS as a nominee for Bergin and Bergin’s successors. Bergin sold the note to the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit, for which U.S. Bank was trustee. The mortgage was held by MERS, and serviced by GMAC. In 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to “U.S. Bank National Association as trustee.” In 2010 Orlans sent Conlan notice (Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3205a), of default and of his ability to request loan modification, stating that it was sent on behalf of GMAC as “the creditor to whom your mortgage debt is owed or the servicing agent for the creditor.” In 2011, Orlans published notice of foreclosure sale, stating that “the mortgage is now held by U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee by assignment.” The notice was also posted on the property, which was sold at a sheriff’s sale on March 31. On October 28, 2011, Conlin sought damages and to have the foreclosure sale set aside. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Even if the “robo-signed” assignment were invalid, Conlin was not prejudiced. He has not clearly shown fraud in the foreclosure process, as required for a challenge after expiration of the six-month redemption period. View "Conlin v. Mrtg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law